Peanut Gallery

Experts in which field?Who decides whether a particular concept is supernatural or not? Did scientists decree that the God Thor is a supernatural being? No. Did scientists define Voldermort as a supernatural being? Apollo? Satan? No. No. And no again.The supernaturality of these concepts has nothing to do with scientists. If there was any actual evidence of any of these sorts of beings actually existing the role of science would be to assess whether or not they actually exist and whether or not they had the miraculous abilities ascribed to them. It has nothing to do with a team of white coated experts rubber stamping the word "supernatural" on the forehead of Zeus.And in the absence of any evidence of any such entity all of this definitional horse shit is entirely moot anyway. Do you understand that supernatural entities could actually exist and bluegene's theory could still be true? Do you understand that even if no supernatiral entities actually exist bluegenes theory could still be false?Because until you understand that this is about the evidenced source of such concepts rather than explictly about the existence of supernatural entities you are doomed to prattle on about anal Emma for ever.

Surprisingly well, thank you: A thorough convalescence after long illness may be the closest we get to a fountain of youth. Getting older and feeling younger is a tasty paradox.I'm glad to see you looking fit, trim and pugnacious. It seems to me that your criteria for proper use rule out any unqualified use; by your lights, I see no justification for ever saying "certain knowledge." Do we? How many unevidenced certainties must we put in the phenomenologists' brackets to say so?[Matrix/Descartes' Evil Daemon]
[the integrity of each scientist and instrument maker involved]
[the X factor which makes nonsense of all our measures]
[a current sane state]
[etcetera]The appropriate brackets for the word 'knowledge' come prepackaged with the context of its use. I see no reason for a long string of qualifiers, even for scientists: in that context, the qualifiers are understood; outside that context, they aren't necessary and, far from misleading anyone, may even undermine the popular understanding and acceptance of scientific findings.

Wow. I wasn't actually talking about EvCforum. I was talking about the Peanut Gallery forum Message 255Do you have some sort of a crush on me? You've been following me around a lot latley for some reason. Is there something I can help you with?If you actually are going to keep biting at my ankles try not to misrepresent me, ok pal?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Straggler lurches on, careening into the coffee tables, with: Whether you or I concede or not concede, we are not experts in the field and both of our testimonies, up or down, to any such concessions are worth - diddly - diddly squat -zero. BULLSHIT - you mischaracterize this. LIAR. All I said was that it would be more likely. I said nothing about admitting one way or the other.Remember this from Message 1593: It doesn't matter what you or I or Modulous or bluegenes or RAZD or chuck77 or whoever here in EvC says. No one here is an expert in the field. Do you deny that the best people to make a scientific conclusion are those who are trained and educated in the field of their specialty? The correct spelling is Analemma, a combination of analog and lemma. Cease and desist your childish joking on this - you aren't worthy of it...to do so is vulgar and belittling of you.My Analemma position is based on observations I have accumulated over my lifetime about scientific papers published in respected scientific journals (Omni is NOT such a publication).

Modulous kindly writes: You missed my point.The INADMISSIBILITY of these stories is not because they are 100% human imagination - it is because they are known to be INACCURATE and therefore worthless. Hearsay could describe something real, but - nonetheless - it is inadmissible. My 2nd cousin's aunt could describe a robber entering her ground floor window with words such as "I heard him open it and climb in" but because she was in another room upstairs, it should not be used to convict him if there was no other (to use a Straggler term of recent usage) more "CONCRETE" evidence. She might have been completely accurate in describing what was going on. But the jury cannot use her testimony there on its own. It is only less than circumstantial evidence - supporting as it may be. Since when has "a major element" equaled "an entirety"???While I may agree with bluegenes' conclusions in my own personal way, I do not agree that it forms a (Stronger Than Dirt) Theory!

I think you are nearly ready for a 'Dawn Bertot' list.
I think it will be based on all the posts where you claim that a man fancies you. (Projection much?)Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

That was the first one actually. Jealous?

***content deleted***Give this comment by RAZD a whirl Message 273--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : content deleted

Well, that makes it at least 3 on this thread alone.You clearly have issues.
Maybe those pictures of Arnie are a clue. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Oh - of course!
Your list should be based on your contempt of women!Thanks for the suggestion!

You should try reading this message from RAZD too Message 273As you i've also given you no reason to harass me here like you are and stalk me from thread to thread. It's quite rediculous.There's are tons of posts where your acting like theo too, including your last two here. How you havnt been suspended yet to harassing new members is beyond me.Are you guys the welcoming commity for EvCForum? To harass all Creationists for no reason?Do you like harassing new members at EvCforum? Are trying to represent the site in your own special way? Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

You have given me reason to harass you here.
I am not stalking you from thread to thread.
Your claims of being stalked are quite ridiculous. I guess I'll take that as a compliment. I think that says more about your level of understanding than anything else. No, I am not part of a welcoming committee. I don't harass all creationists. I don't harass all new members - so, no. No. I do not represent this site at all.So - you managed to say almost nothing that is correct.
And your post was 90% insults.
Which is slightly better than your normal posts.
Well done you.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Your pathetic and a complete embarrasment to this site. You act like a child from thread to thread.You are only here to harass people. I don't have time to post all the posts with you doing it but im going too.

Perhaps members who are commenting on each other rather than on the threads they're watching could use PM's instead of posting messages here? There is that handy little "Send Private Message" link beneath each member's info summary.I hope it's okay with Chuck if I reveal this, but my understanding from a PM he sent me is that he feels he may have embarrassed himself here with these recent posts and regrets them. This is actually one of the qualities I thought I saw in Chuck that I thought so valuable, the ability to at some point take a step back and take a more objective look at what's going on and your role in it. I hope, and I'm sure Chuck hopes, too, that there are no hard feelings.There's a moderator discussion about Peanut Gallery threads going on right now, nothing to report yet.

I didn't. I said that your point is to render any specified supernatural entity unfalsifiable by means of the Hindu Hypothesis route. Are you suggesting that this wasn't your point? Because it looks exactly like that, and I could draw upon RAZD's Hindu Hypothesis as evidence of this if you want me to baby-step you through it. They are not known to be inaccurate. They are presumed to be inaccurate, and the Hindu Hypothesis predicts they will be inaccurate. But if they were known to be inaccurate, then Islam and Christianity would not exist. Therefore, I demand the evidence that demonstrates sufficiently to be called 'knowledge' that the Koran inaccurately describes God.They are inadmissible as evidence of the existence of supernatural beings for all the reasons you hint at. But that is not what they are being used as. They are being admitted as examples of supernatural entities that have been proposed to exist. And that is all. To this end, they are perfectly admissible. As admissible as any claimed supernatural being.On the one hand, you want bluegenes theory to fish in deeper pools, you want bluegenes' theory to discuss the 'big guns' and as soon as it does, you want to retreat to the Hindu Hypothesis to try and defend the big guns from bluegenes' theory. A somewhat inconsistent approach, it must be said. As far as I am concerned when the defining characteristics can be determined to be human imagination - that is as good as the whole. I agree with RAZD that all the different religions are based on actually existing entities, that these things do not come from 'pure imagination' anymore than Columbo was derived purely from imagination (Richard Levinson and William Link drew upon real experiences with real detectives, crimes, scenes, buildings, governments, police procedures etc etc). Even though the stories of Columbo are not in entirety sourced from the human imagination, and only the major elements are - I am comfortable saying that Columbo is a product of human imagination.It is in that sense that I am saying that either Jesus the God or Allah from the Koran are products of the human imagination.They might be based on real gods, prophets etc, but I am not saying that 'the inspiration for Allah from the Koran is imaginary'. I am saying that the specific entity, Allah from the Koran, is predicted to be a product of human imagination. Likewise Mr Levinson might point to a detective he once met that inspired Columbo but that doesn't mean that Columbo is any less a product of human imagination.So again, the only thing that is INADMISSIBLE are unfalsifiable Hindu Hypothesis type escape clauses. Which is all you are really doing.